Close to the 7th National Assembly, the race for the speakership of the House of Representatives is less than settled. But the House looks to be in high spirits as members have narrowed the search to Ajibola Saubana Ajibola, 48 and Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, 45. Also in the race is Hon Adeola Mulikat Akande, 51. A lawyer, she was first elected into the House in 2007.
The factors that will determine the next Speaker of the House of Representatives have excluded aspirants from the South East. And this has forced the ambitious lawmakers from the South East to shuttle between the Ajibola camp and Tambuwal camp as they look forward to settling for the deputy speaker position.
The incumbent Chief Whip of the House, Emeka Ihedioha, a leading contender from the South East, is angling to grab the deputy speaker and there are reports that he has deployed resources to support the Tambuwal campaign. Ihedioha is the main brain behind the solidarity and unusual political unity in the South East against the retention of the position of Speaker by the South West. However, it was learnt that the choice of Ihedioha is raising concerns and some lawmakers in the team were have suggested that a search be opened for an alternative to Ihedioha. A source in the camp said last night, “it is true but he is a very accomplished member of the House from the South East. We will work round it.”
As the horse-trading continues, the two camps are making efforts to woo the other parties for support. And in this regard, the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) is seen as the beautiful bride.
The Tambuwal camp claims that it has struck a working arrangement with members of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC). The CPC caucus in the House has not yet said anything in favour of any candidate. Perhaps the only way to x-ray the political manipulations and maneuvers is by looking at the factors working for the camps.
Tambuwal, a lawyer, was first elected into the House in 2003 and has been re-elected twice since then. His candidacy is propelled by a group of lawmakers who oppose the retention of zoning for the leadership of the House by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). His support base is the North West, South East, but he has an even wider support from a few other zones.
According to those supporting Tambuwal’s cause, the desire to push him forward was borne out of considerations like:
1. Tambuwal’s rich legislative background having been in the House since 2003.
2. the image of the House required serious improvement
3. PDP ignored the need to stabilise the House when it reeled out its zoning formula in the National Assembly
4. since the retention of the present zoning formula was aimed at the stability, which Senate President David Mark has enthroned in the Senate, should not this apply in the House?
5. the argument against the North holding the offices of the Vice President, Senate President, Speaker and PDP National Chairman at the same time is not unusual. They cite the example of 1979 when the South produced the Vice President, the Senate President, the Speaker, the party chairman when the President was from the North.
6. that there is no compelling reason for the PDP to restrict itself to the zoning formula at the expense of the stability of the House, after it abandoned the principle of zoning for Jonathan.
7. that the leadership of the PDP fails to appreciate the enormity of the problems in the House and therefore cannot offer solutions regarding the kind of leadership required to deal with the problems.
8. that the party leaders pretended to be retaining the zoning formula even when they had ulterior motives.
9. the question of the massive loss of seats is also noted
10. the number of members elected under the PDP to the House at the moment has hampered the opportunity for the House to source for the best.
A source close to the Tambuwal camp said, “we are determined to elect our own leader in the House. We are convinced that we can manage the failure of our leaders if we elect them than if they are imposed on us by other interests. This is also our own way of entrenching democracy.
“Essentially this is a House project designed to insist on independence of the Legislature. Imposition doesn’t work in the House. Moreover, if the Senate can pick its own leaders, why will that not apply to the House? They talk about ranking there, and we talk about experience.”
But a problem the group will contend with is the PDP leadership, which has viewed their action as anti-party. The lawmakers supporting Tambuwal are made to understand that without the support of the party they wont have secured reelection. They were also been told that the party might not support them in future if they refuse to tow the party’s line on Ajibola.
Tambuwal, from Sokoto State is also running against the interests of Vice President Namadi Sambo who is also from the same North West zone. Members of the group have deliberately avoided meeting with the party national chairman and the Vice President, amidst efforts to get Tambuwal to retrace his steps. It recently emerged that the pressure coming from the state governors is said to have added to the problems faced by Tambuwal. Most of the governors from the North including Sokoto and North West are from the PDP.
Ajibola’s candidacy gained currency when the PDP had decided to retain the existing zoning formula in the National Assembly. A lawyer also, Ajibola was elected in 2007, he played an outstanding role in the House probe into Federal Government’s expenditure in the power sector, a role his colleagues interpreted as a defence for former president, Olusegun Obasanjo. This perception has attracted criticism against his candidature, as many returning lawmakers believe that a Ajibola leadership would make the House a stooge in the hands of Obasanjo. This is a huge battle Ajibola has got to contend with so far as his camp has tried to explain that Ajibola’s perceived support for Obasanjo in the power probe was nothing but an attempt to ensure that the House complied with the ethics of legislative investigation including of fairness and innocence until proven guilty.
Ajibola was the only member of that Power probe committee who wrote a minority report against the original report submitted by the Elumelu-led committee.
His campaign message has centered on a five-point agenda including running an open and transparent leadership, creation of enabling environment for good laws made by the legislative arm to sail through, and in a manner that would touch on the lives of all Nigerians.
He has the support of the PDP going for him and this ironically can also be a major handicap with the House determined to resist the influence of external factors in the search of its leadership. After the meeting of the extended PDP caucus, which ratified the retention of the position of speaker in the South West, the zone’s caucus of the PDP met and chose Ajibola and communicated the choice to the party’s national leadership and President Goodluck Jonathan. Sambo is coordinating the campaign together with the acting National Chairman of PDP, Bello. Also, the 15 governors of PDP from the North met in Abuja and endorsed the decision of the PDP leadership to retain the existing zoning formula regarding the leadership of the National Assembly.
The choice of Dogara Yakubu last week as the running mate for Ajibola has equally boosted the team, as there are speculations that the PDP is playing the Dogara card to stabilise the team.
Dogara, one of the king makers in the House is a member of the kitchen cabinet of the incumbent Speaker Dimeji Bankole. He was the Vice Chairman of New Agenda Forum (NAF), an umbrella association of new members-elect that was formed as a pressure group, which played a crucial role in the emergence of principal officers of the House. He was appointed a member of the Ad-Hoc Selection Committee responsible for the structure and composition of standing committees of the House.
Between 2007 and 2010, he was Chairman, House Committee on Customs and Excise from where he moved last year to the House Services Committee as Chairman till date. It is to his credit that his activities as chairman of these committees have been devoid of controversies. In fact, he rather deployed his skill to good effect when he was appointed Chairman, Nigeria Customs Service probe panel, member House Contract Scam probe panel and member, Hijack of Fishing Vessels and Maritime Security Probe Panel.
However, Ajibola is strongly criticised on account of allegations of being a lone-ranger with an uncompromising personality. Many believe that there would not be any difference between Ajibola and Bankole in terms of legislative stubbornness and rascality.
In the meantime, a strategy to ease the pressure from the PDP and the governors was devised last week by the Tambuwal camp, which influenced the House to change the method of voting from open to open secret voting. By this open-secret method, the party would not be able to detect how lawmakers voted. This was made possible by majority of the serving lawmakers in the House that have sympathy for Tambuwal and have vowed to resist the imposition or interference by the party leadership and the Presidency in the choice of Speaker of the House.
Akande, 51, is regarded as a very articulate and intelligent lawmaker, her strongest point is that she has a very humble disposition. And this has made her very acceptable to those kingmakers in the House who are opposed to electing a speaker that could turn out to be a bully.
Her supporters are counting on possible resistance by lawmakers against what they called imposition of speaker. A Mulikat speakership can only be realised if majority of lawmakers decide to abandon the dictate of the PDP leadership. It was gathered that some ranking lawmakers had started lobbying the PDP leadership to allow members choose whoever they wanted from the South West instead of narrowing the speakership to only one person from the South West zone.
The days ahead of the inauguration are certainly going to be tense in the House as the lawmakers approach the crucial time where the decisions will be taken by either of the groups and their supporters.
Meanwhile, the PDP is unhappy with some party leaders, which it observed were playing double standards in this speakership race.
According to a principal officer in the House, “it has become clear that some party leaders would declare support for Ajibola in the daytime and go back to encourage Tambuwal in the midnight. We are also aware of the secret meetings, which Tambuwal and his group are having with some prominent persons who simply want to use the opportunity provided by this speakership contest to settle scores with the party.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
Friday, 4 March 2011
Six unarmed female were killed by forces loyal to ivory coast sturbbon leader
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast — Soldiers backing Ivory Coast’s defiant leader shot and killed six women yesterday as they protested his refusal to leave power. The attack shocked a nation where women’s marches have long been used as a last resort against an unrestrained army.
Women had decided this week to organize women-only marches in the nation’s commercial capital, assuming soldiers would be too ashamed to open fire.
But at least six of the thousands of women who were demonstrating yesterday were killed on the spot, said Mohamed Dosso, an assistant to the mayor of Abobo who said he saw the bodies.
The three-month-old conflict in Ivory Coast has entered a new level of intensity. With each passing day, the regime of Laurent Gbagbo is proving it is willing to go to any length to stay in office after an election that international observers say he lost.
Sirah Drane, 41, who helped organize the march, said she was holding the megaphone and preparing to address the large crowd that had gathered at a traffic circle in Abobo.
“That’s when we saw the tanks,’’ she said. “There were thousands of women. And we said to ourselves, ‘They won’t shoot at women.’ . . . I heard a boom. They started spraying us. . . . I tried to run and fell down. The others trampled me. Opening fire on unarmed women? It’s inconceivable.’’
The attack prompted an immediate rebuke from the United States, which like most governments has urged Gbagbo to step down and has recognized his rival as the country’s legitimate president.
Nearly 400 people have been killed in the country, including 32 in the last 24 hours, according to UN figures and combined with deaths confirmed by the Associated Press.
Last week, Gbagbo’s forces entered the Abobo neighborhood and began shelling it with mortars, an escalation indicating the army is willing to use war-grade weapons on its citizens.
Women had decided this week to organize women-only marches in the nation’s commercial capital, assuming soldiers would be too ashamed to open fire.
But at least six of the thousands of women who were demonstrating yesterday were killed on the spot, said Mohamed Dosso, an assistant to the mayor of Abobo who said he saw the bodies.
The three-month-old conflict in Ivory Coast has entered a new level of intensity. With each passing day, the regime of Laurent Gbagbo is proving it is willing to go to any length to stay in office after an election that international observers say he lost.
Sirah Drane, 41, who helped organize the march, said she was holding the megaphone and preparing to address the large crowd that had gathered at a traffic circle in Abobo.
“That’s when we saw the tanks,’’ she said. “There were thousands of women. And we said to ourselves, ‘They won’t shoot at women.’ . . . I heard a boom. They started spraying us. . . . I tried to run and fell down. The others trampled me. Opening fire on unarmed women? It’s inconceivable.’’
The attack prompted an immediate rebuke from the United States, which like most governments has urged Gbagbo to step down and has recognized his rival as the country’s legitimate president.
Nearly 400 people have been killed in the country, including 32 in the last 24 hours, according to UN figures and combined with deaths confirmed by the Associated Press.
Last week, Gbagbo’s forces entered the Abobo neighborhood and began shelling it with mortars, an escalation indicating the army is willing to use war-grade weapons on its citizens.
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Beyonce returns Gaddafi's Money, Dutch soldiers taken prisoners and African mistaken as mercenaries
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Libya's embattled leader Muammar Gaddafi have discussed plans for an international peacekeeping mission to mediate the crisis in Libya, say officials.
"We do confirm that Comandante Chavez had a conversation with Gaddafii yesterday (Tuesday) on a Peace Commission for Libya proposal," Communications Minister Andres Izarra tweeted.
Izarra did not offer more details on the talks between the close allies.
Gaddafi's government has been rocked by two weeks of bloody clashes with protesters seeking to topple his 41-year-old regime.
Chavez on Monday proposed creating an international peace mission with forces from friendly nations to try to mediate the unrest gripping the North African nation and avoid civil war.
As rebels repulsed a fierce onslaught by Gaddafi's forces on a key oil town, the longtime leader warned earlier that "thousands" would die if the West intervened.
The United States and its allies meanwhile cooled talk of imposing a no-fly zone over his country amid growing global calls for action to stop Gaddafi from using warplanes against his own people and to protect refugees scrambling to escape.
Chavez claims the United States is "exaggerating things and twisting things to justify an invasion" of Libya.
Both leaders regularly make public condemnations of US "imperialism" and have exchanged visits in recent years. Ties are so close that Gaddafi was rumoured at one point to have fled to Caracas, claims later denied.
Dutch soldiers taken prisoner
In other developments, three Dutch soldiers were taken prisoner at the weekend by armed men during an operation to evacuate civilians from Libya, the Dutch defence ministry said today.
"We confirm it," a navy official told AFP when asked about the capture of three marines reported by Dutch daily De Telegraaf.
The paper said the three marines were helping with the evacuation from Sirte of two civilians, one Dutch and another European, in a helicopter that crashed.
The marines were attacked by armed men loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi who captured them. The two civilians were handed over by the Libyans to the Dutch embassy and have since left Libya, according to De Telegraaf.
Thousands of Africans fear being mistaken for mercenaries
In the rush to get foreigners out of Libya, thousands of migrant Africans are being left behind, holed up at home terrified as insurgents mistake them for mercenaries fighting for Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
Rumours that Gaddafi has hired fighters from south of the Sahara to quash a popular revolt against him have made hordes of Africans targets of popular anger, many from poor countries unable to organise their evacuation.
Libyan border crossings were overwhelmed on Wednesday by tens of thousands of hungry, fearful people fleeing its burgeoning civil war.
Egypt and a handful of European nations launched emergency airlifts and sent ships to handle the chaotic exodus.
UN refugee agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said over 180,000 refugees have reached the border.
Beyonce donates Gaddafi fee
Beyonce says she donated money she received for performing for the Gaddafi clan to Haiti relief efforts more than a year ago.
The superstar made the revelation in a statement on Wednesday to The Associated Press. Her announcement comes days after singer Nelly Furtado tweeted that she had gotten $US1 million from the Gaddafi clan to perform in Italy in 2007. Furtado says she's donating that money to charity.
Beyonce's publicist says she performed at a private party on the island of St Barts on New Year's Eve in 2009. Once it was revealed that the performance was linked to the Gaddafi family, she gave the money and commissions to earthquake relief in Haiti.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is being investigated for possible war crimes.
"We do confirm that Comandante Chavez had a conversation with Gaddafii yesterday (Tuesday) on a Peace Commission for Libya proposal," Communications Minister Andres Izarra tweeted.
Izarra did not offer more details on the talks between the close allies.
Gaddafi's government has been rocked by two weeks of bloody clashes with protesters seeking to topple his 41-year-old regime.
Chavez on Monday proposed creating an international peace mission with forces from friendly nations to try to mediate the unrest gripping the North African nation and avoid civil war.
As rebels repulsed a fierce onslaught by Gaddafi's forces on a key oil town, the longtime leader warned earlier that "thousands" would die if the West intervened.
The United States and its allies meanwhile cooled talk of imposing a no-fly zone over his country amid growing global calls for action to stop Gaddafi from using warplanes against his own people and to protect refugees scrambling to escape.
Chavez claims the United States is "exaggerating things and twisting things to justify an invasion" of Libya.
Both leaders regularly make public condemnations of US "imperialism" and have exchanged visits in recent years. Ties are so close that Gaddafi was rumoured at one point to have fled to Caracas, claims later denied.
Dutch soldiers taken prisoner
In other developments, three Dutch soldiers were taken prisoner at the weekend by armed men during an operation to evacuate civilians from Libya, the Dutch defence ministry said today.
"We confirm it," a navy official told AFP when asked about the capture of three marines reported by Dutch daily De Telegraaf.
The paper said the three marines were helping with the evacuation from Sirte of two civilians, one Dutch and another European, in a helicopter that crashed.
The marines were attacked by armed men loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi who captured them. The two civilians were handed over by the Libyans to the Dutch embassy and have since left Libya, according to De Telegraaf.
Thousands of Africans fear being mistaken for mercenaries
In the rush to get foreigners out of Libya, thousands of migrant Africans are being left behind, holed up at home terrified as insurgents mistake them for mercenaries fighting for Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
Rumours that Gaddafi has hired fighters from south of the Sahara to quash a popular revolt against him have made hordes of Africans targets of popular anger, many from poor countries unable to organise their evacuation.
Libyan border crossings were overwhelmed on Wednesday by tens of thousands of hungry, fearful people fleeing its burgeoning civil war.
Egypt and a handful of European nations launched emergency airlifts and sent ships to handle the chaotic exodus.
UN refugee agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said over 180,000 refugees have reached the border.
Beyonce donates Gaddafi fee
Beyonce says she donated money she received for performing for the Gaddafi clan to Haiti relief efforts more than a year ago.
The superstar made the revelation in a statement on Wednesday to The Associated Press. Her announcement comes days after singer Nelly Furtado tweeted that she had gotten $US1 million from the Gaddafi clan to perform in Italy in 2007. Furtado says she's donating that money to charity.
Beyonce's publicist says she performed at a private party on the island of St Barts on New Year's Eve in 2009. Once it was revealed that the performance was linked to the Gaddafi family, she gave the money and commissions to earthquake relief in Haiti.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is being investigated for possible war crimes.
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Longest ruling presidents and advances of Gadafi of libia
List of longest ruling non-royal leaders
The list of longest ruling non-royal leaders of all time details leaders of countries who ruled for more than 30 consecutive years, and were not royalty, names in bold are still ruling:
No. Name Country Office Tenure Began Tenure Ended Length of Tenure
1. Fidel Castro
Cuba
First Secretary/Prime Minister/President 16 Feb 1959 24 Feb 2008 49 years, 8 days
2. Chiang Kai-shek
Republic of China
Director-General/Premier/President 10 Oct 1928 5 Apr 1975 46 years, 177 days
3. Kim Il-sung
North Korea
General Secretary/Prime Minister/President 9 Sep 1948 8 Jul 1994 45 years, 302 days
4. Omar Bongo
Gabon
President 2 Dec 1967 8 Jun 2009 41 years, 188 days
5. Muammar al-Gaddafi
Libya
Prime Minister/Leader and Guide of the Revolution 1 Sep 1969 Present 41 years, 182 days
6. Enver Hoxha
Albania
First Secretary 22 Oct 1944 11 Apr 1985 40 years, 171 days
7. Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa
Bahrain
Prime Minister 16 Dec 1971 Present 39 years, 76 days
8. Francisco Franco
Spain
Prime Minister/Head of State 1 Oct 1936 20 Nov 1975 39 years, 51 days
9. Gnassingbé Eyadéma
Togo
President 14 Apr 1967 5 Feb 2005 37 years, 297 days
10. Josip Broz Tito
Yugoslavia
Prime Minister/President 29 Nov 1943 4 May 1980 36 years, 157 days
11. António de Oliveira Salazar
Portugal
Prime Minister 5 Jul 1932 25 Sep 1968 36 years, 82 days
12. Todor Zhivkov
Bulgaria
First Secretary/President 4 Mar 1954 17 Nov 1989 35 years, 258 days
13. Paul Biya
Cameroon
Prime Minister/President 30 Jun 1975 Present 35 years, 245 days
14. Félix Houphouët-Boigny
Cote d'Ivoire
Prime Minister/President 1 May 1959 7 Dec 1993 34 years, 220 days
15. Alfredo Stroessner
Paraguay
President 15 Aug 1954 3 Feb 1989 34 years, 172 days
16. Ali Abdullah Saleh
North Yemen/ Yemen
President 18 Jul 1978 Present 32 years, 227 days
17. Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mongolia
Prime Minister/Head of State 26 Jan 1952 23 Aug 1984 32 years, 210 days
18. Dawda Jawara
Gambia
Prime Minister/President 12 Jun 1962 22 Jul 1994 32 years, 40 days
19. János Kádár
Hungary
General Secretary/Prime Minister 25 Oct 1956 27 May 1988 31 years, 214 days
20. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
Equatorial Guinea
President 3 Aug 1979 Present 31 years, 211 days
21. Habib Bourguiba
Tunisia
Prime Minister/President 11 Apr 1956 7 Nov 1987 31 years, 210 days
22. Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore
Prime Minister 5 Jun 1959 28 Nov 1990 31 years, 176 days
23. José Eduardo dos Santos
Angola
President 10 Sep 1979 Present 31 years, 173 days
24. Mobutu Sese Seko
Zaire
President 24 Nov 1965 16 May 1997 31 years, 173 days
25. Hastings Banda
Malawi
Prime Minister/President 1 Feb 1963 21 May 1994 31 years, 109 days
26. Suharto
Indonesia
President 12 Mar 1967 21 May 1998 31 years, 70 days
27. Joseph Stalin
Soviet Union
General Secretary/Prime Minister 3 Apr 1922 5 Mar 1953 30 years, 336 days
28. Robert Mugabe
Zimbabwe
Prime Minister/President 18 Apr 1980 Present 30 years, 318 days
29. Abdou Diouf
Senegal
Prime Minister/President 26 Feb 1970 1 Apr 2000 30 years, 35 days
30. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom
Maldives
President 11 Nov 1978 11 Nov 2008 30 years, 0 days
Forces loyal to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are moving into rebel territory in the east, taking an oil installation in the town of Brega.
The BBC's John Simpson in the nearby city of Ajdabiya says the 100-vehicle convoy is expected to head towards it, and an arms dump there has been bombed.
The city's defenders are in a high state of excitement and expecting an attack, our correspondent says.
In two weeks of unrest Col Gaddafi has lost control of large parts of Libya.
The violence has led to a major humanitarian crisis on the Tunisian border, with tens of thousands of foreigners, most of them Egyptian, stranded and unable to get home.
The UN says a mass evacuation is needed and thousands of lives are at stake.
Meanwhile in the capital Tripoli, where Col Gaddafi is still in charge, a fuel tanker overturned causing several large explosions.
It is not clear whether the incident was an act of sabotage.
Rebels determined
Our correspondent says Brega was defended by a handful of lightly armed rebels, but Ajdabiya is a more important target.
It has a large arms dump which has been bombed several times by pro-Gaddafi forces.
The loyalists are now only a couple of miles from Ajdabiya, the defenders say.
The rebels are determined to put up a fight but it remains to be seen whether this translates into an organised defence of the city.
The list of longest ruling non-royal leaders of all time details leaders of countries who ruled for more than 30 consecutive years, and were not royalty, names in bold are still ruling:
No. Name Country Office Tenure Began Tenure Ended Length of Tenure
1. Fidel Castro
Cuba
First Secretary/Prime Minister/President 16 Feb 1959 24 Feb 2008 49 years, 8 days
2. Chiang Kai-shek
Republic of China
Director-General/Premier/President 10 Oct 1928 5 Apr 1975 46 years, 177 days
3. Kim Il-sung
North Korea
General Secretary/Prime Minister/President 9 Sep 1948 8 Jul 1994 45 years, 302 days
4. Omar Bongo
Gabon
President 2 Dec 1967 8 Jun 2009 41 years, 188 days
5. Muammar al-Gaddafi
Libya
Prime Minister/Leader and Guide of the Revolution 1 Sep 1969 Present 41 years, 182 days
6. Enver Hoxha
Albania
First Secretary 22 Oct 1944 11 Apr 1985 40 years, 171 days
7. Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa
Bahrain
Prime Minister 16 Dec 1971 Present 39 years, 76 days
8. Francisco Franco
Spain
Prime Minister/Head of State 1 Oct 1936 20 Nov 1975 39 years, 51 days
9. Gnassingbé Eyadéma
Togo
President 14 Apr 1967 5 Feb 2005 37 years, 297 days
10. Josip Broz Tito
Yugoslavia
Prime Minister/President 29 Nov 1943 4 May 1980 36 years, 157 days
11. António de Oliveira Salazar
Portugal
Prime Minister 5 Jul 1932 25 Sep 1968 36 years, 82 days
12. Todor Zhivkov
Bulgaria
First Secretary/President 4 Mar 1954 17 Nov 1989 35 years, 258 days
13. Paul Biya
Cameroon
Prime Minister/President 30 Jun 1975 Present 35 years, 245 days
14. Félix Houphouët-Boigny
Cote d'Ivoire
Prime Minister/President 1 May 1959 7 Dec 1993 34 years, 220 days
15. Alfredo Stroessner
Paraguay
President 15 Aug 1954 3 Feb 1989 34 years, 172 days
16. Ali Abdullah Saleh
North Yemen/ Yemen
President 18 Jul 1978 Present 32 years, 227 days
17. Yumjaagiin Tsedenbal
Mongolia
Prime Minister/Head of State 26 Jan 1952 23 Aug 1984 32 years, 210 days
18. Dawda Jawara
Gambia
Prime Minister/President 12 Jun 1962 22 Jul 1994 32 years, 40 days
19. János Kádár
Hungary
General Secretary/Prime Minister 25 Oct 1956 27 May 1988 31 years, 214 days
20. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo
Equatorial Guinea
President 3 Aug 1979 Present 31 years, 211 days
21. Habib Bourguiba
Tunisia
Prime Minister/President 11 Apr 1956 7 Nov 1987 31 years, 210 days
22. Lee Kuan Yew
Singapore
Prime Minister 5 Jun 1959 28 Nov 1990 31 years, 176 days
23. José Eduardo dos Santos
Angola
President 10 Sep 1979 Present 31 years, 173 days
24. Mobutu Sese Seko
Zaire
President 24 Nov 1965 16 May 1997 31 years, 173 days
25. Hastings Banda
Malawi
Prime Minister/President 1 Feb 1963 21 May 1994 31 years, 109 days
26. Suharto
Indonesia
President 12 Mar 1967 21 May 1998 31 years, 70 days
27. Joseph Stalin
Soviet Union
General Secretary/Prime Minister 3 Apr 1922 5 Mar 1953 30 years, 336 days
28. Robert Mugabe
Zimbabwe
Prime Minister/President 18 Apr 1980 Present 30 years, 318 days
29. Abdou Diouf
Senegal
Prime Minister/President 26 Feb 1970 1 Apr 2000 30 years, 35 days
30. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom
Maldives
President 11 Nov 1978 11 Nov 2008 30 years, 0 days
Forces loyal to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are moving into rebel territory in the east, taking an oil installation in the town of Brega.
The BBC's John Simpson in the nearby city of Ajdabiya says the 100-vehicle convoy is expected to head towards it, and an arms dump there has been bombed.
The city's defenders are in a high state of excitement and expecting an attack, our correspondent says.
In two weeks of unrest Col Gaddafi has lost control of large parts of Libya.
The violence has led to a major humanitarian crisis on the Tunisian border, with tens of thousands of foreigners, most of them Egyptian, stranded and unable to get home.
The UN says a mass evacuation is needed and thousands of lives are at stake.
Meanwhile in the capital Tripoli, where Col Gaddafi is still in charge, a fuel tanker overturned causing several large explosions.
It is not clear whether the incident was an act of sabotage.
Rebels determined
Our correspondent says Brega was defended by a handful of lightly armed rebels, but Ajdabiya is a more important target.
It has a large arms dump which has been bombed several times by pro-Gaddafi forces.
The loyalists are now only a couple of miles from Ajdabiya, the defenders say.
The rebels are determined to put up a fight but it remains to be seen whether this translates into an organised defence of the city.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
obama media takeover
Even the Washington Post describes it like something out of Orwell’s 1984. The FCC has approved a presidential alert system. Obama may soon appear on your television or call your cell phone to warn you about the next specious al-Qaeda underwear bombing event.
Commissioners voted last week to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test, according to the Post.
Once again, the government has imposed an unreasonable and absurd mandate on business and the American people.
“The Federal Communications Commission today took action to help pave the way for the first-ever Presidential alert to be aired across the United States on the Nation’s Emergency Alert System (EAS),” the FCC announced on February 3 in a press release. “The national test will help determine the reliability of the EAS system and its effectiveness in notifying the public of emergencies and potential danger nationwide and regionally.”
As Next Generation EAS systems become operational over the next few years, they will complement other public alert and warning systems now being developed, including FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) and the Commercial Mobile Alert System that will enable consumers to receive alerts through a variety of multi-media platforms on their smart-phones, blackberries and other mobile broadband devices.
If implemented, the president will be able to commandeer your smart phone any time he wants and for any reason the government deems necessary.
In November, communications company Alcatel-Lucent announced that it’s creating a Broadcast Message Center that will allow government agencies to send cell phone users specific information in the event of a local, state or national emergency, including those now ubiquitous government warnings about fantastic terror plots that invariably fizzle out or are run by FBI informants and agents provocateurs. It seems not a week or two passes that some gullible Muslim is duped by the agency into a fantastic terror plot (for instance, blowing up Christmas trees).
The Broadcast Message Center is designed to force mobile phone manufacturers to adopt the Federal Communication Commission’s Commercial Mobile Alert System. Under the new system, all phones would receive emergency alerts directly from government bureaucrats.
Former DHS boss Tom Ridge has admitted that the government exploits terror alerts for political gain. Ridge said he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.” A specific al-Qaeda terror alert hyped up prior to the election was downgraded by the DHS after Bush beat fellow bonesman Kerry in the election.
Obama’s warnings about a supposed al-Qaeda attack on targets in Europe was exaggerated for political purposes, Pakistani diplomat Hassan. s. said in October. “I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves,” Hasan said.
No terror event occurred. “It was nothing specific, nothing very new,” said Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask after the official warning. “We agree that there is no indication of concrete targets, concrete dates and concrete terror groups,” added German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.
In addition to your cell phone, the government wants to take control of your internet broadband in the event another phony terror attack threatens the homeland.
Lisa Fowlkes, deputy chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC, told FederalNewsRadio on Monday that the FCC is looking at how wireless broadband could also enhance the EAS as part of a recommendation that was in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan from last year. The idea is to hijack broadband and the internet for emergency alerting propaganda with the “Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) being developed by FEMA and the wireless industry,” according to Fowlkes.
The system would break into your computer or wireless device and broadcast presidential propaganda announcements, FEMA reports, so-called “Imminent Threat Alerts,” and AMBER Alerts.
Government has devised other creative ways to disseminate propaganda. For instance, California introduced a bill last year to commission a study on emerging electronic license plate technology and examine ways that it could introduce new ad revenue streams. In addition to ads, the technology would flash Amber Alerts and other information.
Earlier this month, DHS unveiled a new terror alert system that will hijack social networking sites as one way of informing people of terrorist threat updates. “The new, two-tiered system will provide alerts that are more specific to the threat and even recommend certain actions or suggest that people look for specific suspicious behavior, she said. They also may be limited to a particular audience — such as law enforcement — rather than broadcast to the general public, and also will have a specified end date,” reported Information Week Government.
In December, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country — launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in informing on each other. Thousands of Wamart stores will have telescreens pumping out government propaganda.
FEMA is also working on a new system that would send emergency alerts as text messages to wireless phone users. The system is still about two years away from full implementation, according to the agency.
CMAS is slated to begin deployment in April 2012.
While the nation slept last night, President Barack Hussein OGoebbels revealed his latest piston of the 2-bit liberal propaganda engine.
In a blatant slap in the face to unbiased media, AOL today announced the creation of AOLHuffington, a merger between AOL’s news services and liberal muckrag Huffington Post. Business Insider reports a boyout of $315 million.
After announcing the merger,AOL issued a proclamation that the news station will be the world’s Voice of Liberal Media.
DC insiders are receiving word of an “Obama Takeover Media”, a potential new scheme by the Democratic party to ensure Obama’s continued reign in 2012. Numerous sources corroborate the startling concern, revealing there is an organized conspiracy by the Obama administration to usurp popular modern media outlets, buying out their corporate heads if they do not fall in line with Obama’s abortionist, Trotsky laden Isamo apologetics policy of unprecedented socialist and Sharia blends.
It is a bean that’s tough to find and even tougher to swallow, but within Obama’s new political move for power via propaganda we find a strong brew of deception. At the head of the AOLHuffington empire will be Obama’s new spinning mistress, the dangerous Arianna Huffington, a woman known to cut with the ferocity of a steel-tempered English broadsword of Excalibur quality, but all in the hands of a wild barbarian without logic or reason.
We can now chalk MSNBC, AOL, and National Public Radio as being field agents for Obama. Nothing these stations say or do can be trusted. They do not double-check their sources. They do not represent unbiased media. They have no loyalty to America.
Obama has gained a new Orwellian superpower. As we argue over Obamacare and the fall of the US Dollar, Obama gained the right to appear on any screen whenever he wishes.
Obama now has the right to seize the internet, cellular phone communications, radio broadcasts and television broadcasts. Through a Clinton-era loophole that has given Obama direct control of the FCC, the Obama administration has started to put control boxes on the radio towers that control wireless internet, radio stations and television stations.
In late 2011, Obama will launch space missions where US astronauts under his command will place these boxes on satellites as well. In the Presidential Emergency Warning Act, Obama has the right to declare “any event a state of national emergency”. You could be talking to your friend on your iPhone, when suddenly your friend’s voice will cut out and then Obama’s voice will ring in your ear.
“Fellow American, this is me, President Barack Hussein Obama. I have issued a state of emergency and you must return to your home, immediately. Violators of this edict will be dealt with by the military, under my command.”
It may sound like the worst of 1984, but the day after the Super Bowl and Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday,we find the ultimate betrayal to America.
Even the most lewd of left-wingers realize the problem with the Neoleft conspiracy. Fading is the agenda to make America pro-abortion and pro-gays; coming to the forefront is a powerplay to destroy Democracy itself. It is a battle of old: Christianity versus Islam.
The Moors have a leader in Obama, a dark knight who is buying up media loyalty where he can and using Western technology to ensure all who do not play buy his rules can be shut down, with this push of a button.
Iranian bloggers and loyalists will lie, saying it is not true. To them, look upon the old guardians of immorality and see they are even calling you out on your Arabian lies. America will not go down without a fight and for your information, we will be voting Obama out in 2012 and then coming for you sand dragons under the leadership of a true Christian who should be named George, and we will sear you with the fires of countless prayers and nukes, a heat that not even the great Dragon Lord Lucifer of Islam could stand against.
Commissioners voted last week to require television and radio stations, cable systems and satellite TV providers to participate in a test that would have them receive and transmit a live code that includes an alert message issued by the president. No date has been set for the test, according to the Post.
Once again, the government has imposed an unreasonable and absurd mandate on business and the American people.
“The Federal Communications Commission today took action to help pave the way for the first-ever Presidential alert to be aired across the United States on the Nation’s Emergency Alert System (EAS),” the FCC announced on February 3 in a press release. “The national test will help determine the reliability of the EAS system and its effectiveness in notifying the public of emergencies and potential danger nationwide and regionally.”
As Next Generation EAS systems become operational over the next few years, they will complement other public alert and warning systems now being developed, including FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) and the Commercial Mobile Alert System that will enable consumers to receive alerts through a variety of multi-media platforms on their smart-phones, blackberries and other mobile broadband devices.
If implemented, the president will be able to commandeer your smart phone any time he wants and for any reason the government deems necessary.
In November, communications company Alcatel-Lucent announced that it’s creating a Broadcast Message Center that will allow government agencies to send cell phone users specific information in the event of a local, state or national emergency, including those now ubiquitous government warnings about fantastic terror plots that invariably fizzle out or are run by FBI informants and agents provocateurs. It seems not a week or two passes that some gullible Muslim is duped by the agency into a fantastic terror plot (for instance, blowing up Christmas trees).
The Broadcast Message Center is designed to force mobile phone manufacturers to adopt the Federal Communication Commission’s Commercial Mobile Alert System. Under the new system, all phones would receive emergency alerts directly from government bureaucrats.
Former DHS boss Tom Ridge has admitted that the government exploits terror alerts for political gain. Ridge said he “was pushed to raise the security alert on the eve of President Bush’s re-election, something he saw as politically motivated and worth resigning over.” A specific al-Qaeda terror alert hyped up prior to the election was downgraded by the DHS after Bush beat fellow bonesman Kerry in the election.
Obama’s warnings about a supposed al-Qaeda attack on targets in Europe was exaggerated for political purposes, Pakistani diplomat Hassan. s. said in October. “I will not deny the fact that there may be internal political dynamics, including the forthcoming midterm American elections. If the Americans have definite information about terrorists and al-Qaida people, we should be provided [with] that and we could go after them ourselves,” Hasan said.
No terror event occurred. “It was nothing specific, nothing very new,” said Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask after the official warning. “We agree that there is no indication of concrete targets, concrete dates and concrete terror groups,” added German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere.
In addition to your cell phone, the government wants to take control of your internet broadband in the event another phony terror attack threatens the homeland.
Lisa Fowlkes, deputy chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the FCC, told FederalNewsRadio on Monday that the FCC is looking at how wireless broadband could also enhance the EAS as part of a recommendation that was in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan from last year. The idea is to hijack broadband and the internet for emergency alerting propaganda with the “Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) being developed by FEMA and the wireless industry,” according to Fowlkes.
The system would break into your computer or wireless device and broadcast presidential propaganda announcements, FEMA reports, so-called “Imminent Threat Alerts,” and AMBER Alerts.
Government has devised other creative ways to disseminate propaganda. For instance, California introduced a bill last year to commission a study on emerging electronic license plate technology and examine ways that it could introduce new ad revenue streams. In addition to ads, the technology would flash Amber Alerts and other information.
Earlier this month, DHS unveiled a new terror alert system that will hijack social networking sites as one way of informing people of terrorist threat updates. “The new, two-tiered system will provide alerts that are more specific to the threat and even recommend certain actions or suggest that people look for specific suspicious behavior, she said. They also may be limited to a particular audience — such as law enforcement — rather than broadcast to the general public, and also will have a specified end date,” reported Information Week Government.
In December, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country — launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in informing on each other. Thousands of Wamart stores will have telescreens pumping out government propaganda.
FEMA is also working on a new system that would send emergency alerts as text messages to wireless phone users. The system is still about two years away from full implementation, according to the agency.
CMAS is slated to begin deployment in April 2012.
While the nation slept last night, President Barack Hussein OGoebbels revealed his latest piston of the 2-bit liberal propaganda engine.
In a blatant slap in the face to unbiased media, AOL today announced the creation of AOLHuffington, a merger between AOL’s news services and liberal muckrag Huffington Post. Business Insider reports a boyout of $315 million.
After announcing the merger,AOL issued a proclamation that the news station will be the world’s Voice of Liberal Media.
DC insiders are receiving word of an “Obama Takeover Media”, a potential new scheme by the Democratic party to ensure Obama’s continued reign in 2012. Numerous sources corroborate the startling concern, revealing there is an organized conspiracy by the Obama administration to usurp popular modern media outlets, buying out their corporate heads if they do not fall in line with Obama’s abortionist, Trotsky laden Isamo apologetics policy of unprecedented socialist and Sharia blends.
It is a bean that’s tough to find and even tougher to swallow, but within Obama’s new political move for power via propaganda we find a strong brew of deception. At the head of the AOLHuffington empire will be Obama’s new spinning mistress, the dangerous Arianna Huffington, a woman known to cut with the ferocity of a steel-tempered English broadsword of Excalibur quality, but all in the hands of a wild barbarian without logic or reason.
We can now chalk MSNBC, AOL, and National Public Radio as being field agents for Obama. Nothing these stations say or do can be trusted. They do not double-check their sources. They do not represent unbiased media. They have no loyalty to America.
Obama has gained a new Orwellian superpower. As we argue over Obamacare and the fall of the US Dollar, Obama gained the right to appear on any screen whenever he wishes.
Obama now has the right to seize the internet, cellular phone communications, radio broadcasts and television broadcasts. Through a Clinton-era loophole that has given Obama direct control of the FCC, the Obama administration has started to put control boxes on the radio towers that control wireless internet, radio stations and television stations.
In late 2011, Obama will launch space missions where US astronauts under his command will place these boxes on satellites as well. In the Presidential Emergency Warning Act, Obama has the right to declare “any event a state of national emergency”. You could be talking to your friend on your iPhone, when suddenly your friend’s voice will cut out and then Obama’s voice will ring in your ear.
“Fellow American, this is me, President Barack Hussein Obama. I have issued a state of emergency and you must return to your home, immediately. Violators of this edict will be dealt with by the military, under my command.”
It may sound like the worst of 1984, but the day after the Super Bowl and Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday,we find the ultimate betrayal to America.
Even the most lewd of left-wingers realize the problem with the Neoleft conspiracy. Fading is the agenda to make America pro-abortion and pro-gays; coming to the forefront is a powerplay to destroy Democracy itself. It is a battle of old: Christianity versus Islam.
The Moors have a leader in Obama, a dark knight who is buying up media loyalty where he can and using Western technology to ensure all who do not play buy his rules can be shut down, with this push of a button.
Iranian bloggers and loyalists will lie, saying it is not true. To them, look upon the old guardians of immorality and see they are even calling you out on your Arabian lies. America will not go down without a fight and for your information, we will be voting Obama out in 2012 and then coming for you sand dragons under the leadership of a true Christian who should be named George, and we will sear you with the fires of countless prayers and nukes, a heat that not even the great Dragon Lord Lucifer of Islam could stand against.
egypt, the muslim brotherhood story
1. The Muslim Brotherhood will do well if free elections are held in Egypt for a new parliament in a few months’ time. TRUE
a. Voter participation would likely be much higher in a free election. Historically, voter turnout has been as low as 9%.
b. Voters in past elections may have voted for the Brotherhood as a protest, knowing that there was no possibility of it being permitted to form a government or exercise significant influence.
c. Conversely, the Brotherhood may have held back from displaying its full electoral power in previous elections so as to avoid reprisals and persecution from the authorities.
d. In an open election, the Brotherhood would likely face competition, not only from newly empowered secular opposition parties, long absent from the Egyptian electoral scene, but also from other parties claiming Islam as a guiding force in their politics. Breaking the Brotherhood’s monopolistic claim to be the political face of Islam could split the Islamist vote and thereby dilute its electoral power.
While it has been banned from participating in Egyptian elections, from time to time known Brotherhood supporters have been allowed to run for office as independents. They have often done well, notably in the 2005 parliamentary elections when Brotherhood-identified independents gained 88 seats and formed the largest opposition group in parliament. It is clear that the Brotherhood has the capacity to win parliamentary seats. Having said that, an election with the Brotherhood running openly would be different from previous elections, and the calculations of voters would also be different:
2. Any government in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a substantial role would inevitably be a threat to American interests and would seek to abolish the peace treaty with Israel. FALSE
The Brotherhood will be one among several competing political interests in a new Egyptian government. It is impossible to predict with certainty how political parties might align and configure in new conditions, but institutions and constituencies that now exist will not disappear. The military appears to be consolidating its already extremely strong influence over Egyptian politics and is likely to hold a de-facto veto power over any government policy, especially in the national security area. The military establishment is unlikely to permit actions that would endanger its close cooperative relations with the U.S. military, and its receipt of $1.3 billion of foreign military assistance from U.S. tax payers. Newly appointed Vice-President Omer Suleiman has been a close interlocutor with the United States on counterterrorism and national security issues. His role and the policy of cooperation he has carried out would be likely to continue. Similarly, the military would be unlikely to accept an aggressive policy towards Israel that would end U.S. support and cooperation and give Egypt no strategic advantage.
The business community has grown and prospered in recent years and is heavily dependent on foreign investment and integration in the global economy. A new Egyptian government will face the challenge of meeting the heightened expectations of millions of poor people and finding jobs and opportunities for young people who have been at the forefront of the protests. It will need the goodwill of the business community to build a strong economy and sustain economic growth.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest, most organized opposition group in Egypt. TRUE
In its 30 years in office, President Mubarak’s government and the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) have systematically restricted the development of opposition political parties of all ideological types. Because of its dual identity as both a political movement (although not a political party) and a religious and social movement, the Brotherhood has been able to continue and thrive even when the space for opposition political activity has been restricted. While conventional political parties cannot grow and flourish without a degree of open politics, the Brotherhood can pursue other activities—education, indoctrination and provision of social services—that have permitted it to develop as an organization.
4. The Muslim Brotherhood will do well if free elections are held in Egypt for a new parliament in a few months’ time. TRUE
a. Voter participation would likely be much higher in a free election. Historically, voter turnout has been as low as 9%.
b. Voters in past elections may have voted for the Brotherhood as a protest, knowing that there was no possibility of it being permitted to form a government or exercise significant influence.
c. Conversely, the Brotherhood may have held back from displaying its full electoral power in previous elections so as to avoid reprisals and persecution from the authorities.
d. In an open election, the Brotherhood would likely face competition, not only from newly empowered secular opposition parties, long absent from the Egyptian electoral scene, but also from other parties claiming Islam as a guiding force in their politics. Breaking the Brotherhood’s monopolistic claim to be the political face of Islam could split the Islamist vote and thereby dilute its electoral power.
While it has been banned from participating in Egyptian elections, from time to time known Brotherhood supporters have been allowed to run for office as independents. They have often done well, notably in the 2005 parliamentary elections when Brotherhood-identified independents gained 88 seats and formed the largest opposition group in parliament. It is clear that the Brotherhood has the capacity to win parliamentary seats. Having said that, an election with the Brotherhood running openly would be different from previous elections, and the calculations of voters would also be different:
5. Any government in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a substantial role would inevitably be a threat to American interests and would seek to abolish the peace treaty with Israel. FALSE
The Brotherhood will be one among several competing political interests in a new Egyptian government. It is impossible to predict with certainty how political parties might align and configure in new conditions, but institutions and constituencies that now exist will not disappear. The military appears to be consolidating its already extremely strong influence over Egyptian politics and is likely to hold a de-facto veto power over any government policy, especially in the national security area. The military establishment is unlikely to permit actions that would endanger its close cooperative relations with the U.S. military, and its receipt of $1.3 billion of foreign military assistance from U.S. tax payers. Newly appointed Vice-President Omer Suleiman has been a close interlocutor with the United States on counterterrorism and national security issues. His role and the policy of cooperation he has carried out would be likely to continue. Similarly, the military would be unlikely to accept an aggressive policy towards Israel that would end U.S. support and cooperation and give Egypt no strategic advantage.
The business community has grown and prospered in recent years and is heavily dependent on foreign investment and integration in the global economy. A new Egyptian government will face the challenge of meeting the heightened expectations of millions of poor people and finding jobs and opportunities for young people who have been at the forefront of the protests. It will need the goodwill of the business community to build a strong economy and sustain economic growth.
6. A stronger role for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s government presents a potential threat to women’s rights, the rights of religious minorities and basic political freedoms. TRUE
The Brotherhood has an ambiguous position on many human rights issues, notably on the rights of women and religious minorities and on freedom of expression. For example, a policy platform that was released in 2007 required that the President of the Republic could not be a woman, and provided for a Council of Islamic scholars who would vet legislation for its compatibility with Islam, following the pattern of the Council of Guardians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The publication of this regressive platform caused rare open disputes between Brotherhood leaders, some of whom objected strongly to its contents. One can speculate about what the public platform of a free Muslim Brotherhood would include, but there’s no question that the tendency of the Brotherhood to arrogate to itself the right to judge what constitutes proper Islamic practice and to condemn practice it finds un-Islamic presents risks to the enjoyment of basic rights and freedoms by many Egyptians. Brotherhood supporters speak of “Islamic democracy;” they note that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians are Muslims (which is true) and that many are pious believers (also true). Some take the leap of suggesting that as the Brotherhood is the party of Islam, they automatically speak for this majority and should therefore prevail. Such thinking is a threat to democratic principles.
To guard against the risk of extremism and the curtailment of rights, a revised Egyptian constitution needs to have strong protection for the principle of non-discrimination as well as robust safeguards for freedom of opinion and expression and other basic freedoms, in accordance with Egypt’s obligations in international law. These rights and freedoms must in turn be upheld by a strong, independent judiciary, a strong, independent legislature and other state and private institutions, including a vibrant free press and strong civil society organizations. A new government should ensure that the state education system does not become a vehicle for promoting extremism and hatred of religious minorities.
The Mubarak government has a poor record on many of these core rights and freedoms. Discrimination against Egypt’s minority Christian community has been a constant feature of government policy, and the state has often supported censorship of works of art on the ground that they were offensive to religion. The official media and supporters of the ruling party have propagated defamatory rumors against religious minorities that have fueled sectarian tensions, leading to increasing violence against the Copts. The antisemitic content of the official media has also been a cause for concern. There is reason to hope that a new government, even one including the Brotherhood, might do better in these areas.
The formation of a new government in Egypt (and also in Tunisia) in which the Islamist political trend will be included after decades of exclusion and persecution is a major transformation. In some Arab countries, Islamist groups have participated in the electoral process in controlled circumstances, in Jordan and Morocco for example, and their electoral popularity has diminished when faced with the mundane challenges of governance. Egypt now provides an opportunity to put to rest fears about the impact of the participation of Islamist movements in Arab politics on basic freedoms and democracy, but that opportunity is not without risks.
Events in Egypt have their own momentum, properly led by Egyptians themselves. Nonetheless, the U.S. government has a role to play and, given its long-standing, close, friendly bi-lateral relationship, it has an obligation to provide advice and be a voice in support of basic rights and freedoms in Egypt. The U.S. government has been criticized, not least by human rights organizations, for being insufficiently critical of the previous authoritarian government in Egypt for its violations of human rights; it should not make the same mistake again. Supporting the institutions that uphold the rule of law and build a democratic culture is the best safeguard against future threats to Egypt’s democratic development from the Muslim Brotherhood or any other party or constituency in the new political landscape that might seek to gain power at the expense of basic rights and freedoms.
a. Voter participation would likely be much higher in a free election. Historically, voter turnout has been as low as 9%.
b. Voters in past elections may have voted for the Brotherhood as a protest, knowing that there was no possibility of it being permitted to form a government or exercise significant influence.
c. Conversely, the Brotherhood may have held back from displaying its full electoral power in previous elections so as to avoid reprisals and persecution from the authorities.
d. In an open election, the Brotherhood would likely face competition, not only from newly empowered secular opposition parties, long absent from the Egyptian electoral scene, but also from other parties claiming Islam as a guiding force in their politics. Breaking the Brotherhood’s monopolistic claim to be the political face of Islam could split the Islamist vote and thereby dilute its electoral power.
While it has been banned from participating in Egyptian elections, from time to time known Brotherhood supporters have been allowed to run for office as independents. They have often done well, notably in the 2005 parliamentary elections when Brotherhood-identified independents gained 88 seats and formed the largest opposition group in parliament. It is clear that the Brotherhood has the capacity to win parliamentary seats. Having said that, an election with the Brotherhood running openly would be different from previous elections, and the calculations of voters would also be different:
2. Any government in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a substantial role would inevitably be a threat to American interests and would seek to abolish the peace treaty with Israel. FALSE
The Brotherhood will be one among several competing political interests in a new Egyptian government. It is impossible to predict with certainty how political parties might align and configure in new conditions, but institutions and constituencies that now exist will not disappear. The military appears to be consolidating its already extremely strong influence over Egyptian politics and is likely to hold a de-facto veto power over any government policy, especially in the national security area. The military establishment is unlikely to permit actions that would endanger its close cooperative relations with the U.S. military, and its receipt of $1.3 billion of foreign military assistance from U.S. tax payers. Newly appointed Vice-President Omer Suleiman has been a close interlocutor with the United States on counterterrorism and national security issues. His role and the policy of cooperation he has carried out would be likely to continue. Similarly, the military would be unlikely to accept an aggressive policy towards Israel that would end U.S. support and cooperation and give Egypt no strategic advantage.
The business community has grown and prospered in recent years and is heavily dependent on foreign investment and integration in the global economy. A new Egyptian government will face the challenge of meeting the heightened expectations of millions of poor people and finding jobs and opportunities for young people who have been at the forefront of the protests. It will need the goodwill of the business community to build a strong economy and sustain economic growth.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest, most organized opposition group in Egypt. TRUE
In its 30 years in office, President Mubarak’s government and the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) have systematically restricted the development of opposition political parties of all ideological types. Because of its dual identity as both a political movement (although not a political party) and a religious and social movement, the Brotherhood has been able to continue and thrive even when the space for opposition political activity has been restricted. While conventional political parties cannot grow and flourish without a degree of open politics, the Brotherhood can pursue other activities—education, indoctrination and provision of social services—that have permitted it to develop as an organization.
4. The Muslim Brotherhood will do well if free elections are held in Egypt for a new parliament in a few months’ time. TRUE
a. Voter participation would likely be much higher in a free election. Historically, voter turnout has been as low as 9%.
b. Voters in past elections may have voted for the Brotherhood as a protest, knowing that there was no possibility of it being permitted to form a government or exercise significant influence.
c. Conversely, the Brotherhood may have held back from displaying its full electoral power in previous elections so as to avoid reprisals and persecution from the authorities.
d. In an open election, the Brotherhood would likely face competition, not only from newly empowered secular opposition parties, long absent from the Egyptian electoral scene, but also from other parties claiming Islam as a guiding force in their politics. Breaking the Brotherhood’s monopolistic claim to be the political face of Islam could split the Islamist vote and thereby dilute its electoral power.
While it has been banned from participating in Egyptian elections, from time to time known Brotherhood supporters have been allowed to run for office as independents. They have often done well, notably in the 2005 parliamentary elections when Brotherhood-identified independents gained 88 seats and formed the largest opposition group in parliament. It is clear that the Brotherhood has the capacity to win parliamentary seats. Having said that, an election with the Brotherhood running openly would be different from previous elections, and the calculations of voters would also be different:
5. Any government in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a substantial role would inevitably be a threat to American interests and would seek to abolish the peace treaty with Israel. FALSE
The Brotherhood will be one among several competing political interests in a new Egyptian government. It is impossible to predict with certainty how political parties might align and configure in new conditions, but institutions and constituencies that now exist will not disappear. The military appears to be consolidating its already extremely strong influence over Egyptian politics and is likely to hold a de-facto veto power over any government policy, especially in the national security area. The military establishment is unlikely to permit actions that would endanger its close cooperative relations with the U.S. military, and its receipt of $1.3 billion of foreign military assistance from U.S. tax payers. Newly appointed Vice-President Omer Suleiman has been a close interlocutor with the United States on counterterrorism and national security issues. His role and the policy of cooperation he has carried out would be likely to continue. Similarly, the military would be unlikely to accept an aggressive policy towards Israel that would end U.S. support and cooperation and give Egypt no strategic advantage.
The business community has grown and prospered in recent years and is heavily dependent on foreign investment and integration in the global economy. A new Egyptian government will face the challenge of meeting the heightened expectations of millions of poor people and finding jobs and opportunities for young people who have been at the forefront of the protests. It will need the goodwill of the business community to build a strong economy and sustain economic growth.
6. A stronger role for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s government presents a potential threat to women’s rights, the rights of religious minorities and basic political freedoms. TRUE
The Brotherhood has an ambiguous position on many human rights issues, notably on the rights of women and religious minorities and on freedom of expression. For example, a policy platform that was released in 2007 required that the President of the Republic could not be a woman, and provided for a Council of Islamic scholars who would vet legislation for its compatibility with Islam, following the pattern of the Council of Guardians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The publication of this regressive platform caused rare open disputes between Brotherhood leaders, some of whom objected strongly to its contents. One can speculate about what the public platform of a free Muslim Brotherhood would include, but there’s no question that the tendency of the Brotherhood to arrogate to itself the right to judge what constitutes proper Islamic practice and to condemn practice it finds un-Islamic presents risks to the enjoyment of basic rights and freedoms by many Egyptians. Brotherhood supporters speak of “Islamic democracy;” they note that the overwhelming majority of Egyptians are Muslims (which is true) and that many are pious believers (also true). Some take the leap of suggesting that as the Brotherhood is the party of Islam, they automatically speak for this majority and should therefore prevail. Such thinking is a threat to democratic principles.
To guard against the risk of extremism and the curtailment of rights, a revised Egyptian constitution needs to have strong protection for the principle of non-discrimination as well as robust safeguards for freedom of opinion and expression and other basic freedoms, in accordance with Egypt’s obligations in international law. These rights and freedoms must in turn be upheld by a strong, independent judiciary, a strong, independent legislature and other state and private institutions, including a vibrant free press and strong civil society organizations. A new government should ensure that the state education system does not become a vehicle for promoting extremism and hatred of religious minorities.
The Mubarak government has a poor record on many of these core rights and freedoms. Discrimination against Egypt’s minority Christian community has been a constant feature of government policy, and the state has often supported censorship of works of art on the ground that they were offensive to religion. The official media and supporters of the ruling party have propagated defamatory rumors against religious minorities that have fueled sectarian tensions, leading to increasing violence against the Copts. The antisemitic content of the official media has also been a cause for concern. There is reason to hope that a new government, even one including the Brotherhood, might do better in these areas.
The formation of a new government in Egypt (and also in Tunisia) in which the Islamist political trend will be included after decades of exclusion and persecution is a major transformation. In some Arab countries, Islamist groups have participated in the electoral process in controlled circumstances, in Jordan and Morocco for example, and their electoral popularity has diminished when faced with the mundane challenges of governance. Egypt now provides an opportunity to put to rest fears about the impact of the participation of Islamist movements in Arab politics on basic freedoms and democracy, but that opportunity is not without risks.
Events in Egypt have their own momentum, properly led by Egyptians themselves. Nonetheless, the U.S. government has a role to play and, given its long-standing, close, friendly bi-lateral relationship, it has an obligation to provide advice and be a voice in support of basic rights and freedoms in Egypt. The U.S. government has been criticized, not least by human rights organizations, for being insufficiently critical of the previous authoritarian government in Egypt for its violations of human rights; it should not make the same mistake again. Supporting the institutions that uphold the rule of law and build a democratic culture is the best safeguard against future threats to Egypt’s democratic development from the Muslim Brotherhood or any other party or constituency in the new political landscape that might seek to gain power at the expense of basic rights and freedoms.
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Tunisian riot continues
Tunisia's unprecedented mass saga are reverberating across the Arab world – which is watching in fascination as one of the most repressive regimes in the regions makes far-reaching concessions to people power.
Protests over rising food and fuel prices triggered emergency economic measures from Jordan to Libya and Morocco this week as dramatic scenes of street clashes in the small north African country fuelled official nervousness about a domino effect that could shake other authoritarian states short on jobs, hopes and freedoms.
"Every Arab leader is watching Tunisia in fear," tweeted one Egyptian commentator. "Every Arab citizen is watching Tunisia in hope and solidarity."
The impact of Tunisia's unrest is all the greater because Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – known to his long-suffering subjects as "Ben A Vie" ("president for life") – had been seen as one of the most effective of Arab autocrats. His announcement on Wednesday that he will not stand for another term is a huge boost for reform, whatever happens next.
survive in business these trying times! Click here.
The obvious contrast is with Egypt, the most populous of Arab countries. Hosni Mubarak, 82, who like Ben Ali keeps Islamists firmly out of power and tolerates only weak secular opposition, is seeking another presidential term next year- when he will mark three decades in power.
If Ben Ali, 74, is on his way out, that will be a democratic advance and a ringing wake-up call for a region where a trend towards republican dynasties – in Syria, Libya and Egypt – sits alongside the hereditary monarchies and emirates of the Gulf and Morocco.
Arab excitement has been maintained by al-Jazeera, the freest and feistiest TV channel in the region, which has broadcast riveting pictures of Tunisian crowds facing down well-equipped security forces. Twitter, Facebook and blogs have circumvented state censorship to provoke excited debate about the impact of the resonantly-named "Jasmine Revolt" or "youth intifada"– with its homage to Palestinian resistance to Israel.
"For all the other Arabs: thanks for your support," one exhilarated Tunisian tweeted. "Inshallah, freedom will be ours from the [Atlantic] ocean till the [Arabian] Gulf." Another message read: "To my Tunisian brothers and sisters: keep it up, all Arab peoples are watching you with admiration and envy."
Jerky mobile-phone images of blood spreading from the fatal gunshot wound of one Tunisian demonstrator provided Arabs with their own equivalent of Neda Agha-Soltani, the young Iranian woman killed in Tehran during protests after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Arab pundits often point bitterly to the contrast between the sympathy of western countries for the Iranian Greens and their normally firm backing for the Arab dictatorships. So US and British criticism of Ben Ali's repression has been greeted with delight. The Wikileaks revelations about the scathing private views of the US ambassador in Tunis were widely read across the region – and, some argue, even helped prepare the ground for the current unrest.
Viewed from the Arab world, Tunisia's problems are depressingly familiar. Algeria, which saw days of rioting and half a dozen dead earlier this month, is protected by its greater wealth – its energy a steadier earner than its smaller neighbour's tourism – though both are almost twice as rich as Syria, Morocco and Egypt.
All face the Arab scourge of having the highest unemployment rate worldwide – an average of 14.5% in 2007/2008, compared with an international average of 5.7% – and endemic corruption, cronyism and a lack of transparency and democracy. No wonder Ben Ali's fate and Tunisia's future are being so closely watched.
Protests over rising food and fuel prices triggered emergency economic measures from Jordan to Libya and Morocco this week as dramatic scenes of street clashes in the small north African country fuelled official nervousness about a domino effect that could shake other authoritarian states short on jobs, hopes and freedoms.
"Every Arab leader is watching Tunisia in fear," tweeted one Egyptian commentator. "Every Arab citizen is watching Tunisia in hope and solidarity."
The impact of Tunisia's unrest is all the greater because Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali – known to his long-suffering subjects as "Ben A Vie" ("president for life") – had been seen as one of the most effective of Arab autocrats. His announcement on Wednesday that he will not stand for another term is a huge boost for reform, whatever happens next.
survive in business these trying times! Click here.
The obvious contrast is with Egypt, the most populous of Arab countries. Hosni Mubarak, 82, who like Ben Ali keeps Islamists firmly out of power and tolerates only weak secular opposition, is seeking another presidential term next year- when he will mark three decades in power.
If Ben Ali, 74, is on his way out, that will be a democratic advance and a ringing wake-up call for a region where a trend towards republican dynasties – in Syria, Libya and Egypt – sits alongside the hereditary monarchies and emirates of the Gulf and Morocco.
Arab excitement has been maintained by al-Jazeera, the freest and feistiest TV channel in the region, which has broadcast riveting pictures of Tunisian crowds facing down well-equipped security forces. Twitter, Facebook and blogs have circumvented state censorship to provoke excited debate about the impact of the resonantly-named "Jasmine Revolt" or "youth intifada"– with its homage to Palestinian resistance to Israel.
"For all the other Arabs: thanks for your support," one exhilarated Tunisian tweeted. "Inshallah, freedom will be ours from the [Atlantic] ocean till the [Arabian] Gulf." Another message read: "To my Tunisian brothers and sisters: keep it up, all Arab peoples are watching you with admiration and envy."
Jerky mobile-phone images of blood spreading from the fatal gunshot wound of one Tunisian demonstrator provided Arabs with their own equivalent of Neda Agha-Soltani, the young Iranian woman killed in Tehran during protests after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Arab pundits often point bitterly to the contrast between the sympathy of western countries for the Iranian Greens and their normally firm backing for the Arab dictatorships. So US and British criticism of Ben Ali's repression has been greeted with delight. The Wikileaks revelations about the scathing private views of the US ambassador in Tunis were widely read across the region – and, some argue, even helped prepare the ground for the current unrest.
Viewed from the Arab world, Tunisia's problems are depressingly familiar. Algeria, which saw days of rioting and half a dozen dead earlier this month, is protected by its greater wealth – its energy a steadier earner than its smaller neighbour's tourism – though both are almost twice as rich as Syria, Morocco and Egypt.
All face the Arab scourge of having the highest unemployment rate worldwide – an average of 14.5% in 2007/2008, compared with an international average of 5.7% – and endemic corruption, cronyism and a lack of transparency and democracy. No wonder Ben Ali's fate and Tunisia's future are being so closely watched.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)